On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 6:42 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > JAYATHEERTH K <jayatheerthkulkarni2005@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I think something like git commit "*" -m "Test" also would be a great test > > or even git rm command. > > Yes, there are things other than "git add" that take pathspec (even > "git ls-files" does so), and demonstrating the blast radious of the > existing "bug" you fixed, with how they behave differently and > better with your fix, would be a good thing to do. > Yes ls-files is also a great example, I will add them in the test. I think for the pathspec and glob specific commands almost all the commands share the same code, so it should work the same for all. > But make sure you follow "dashed options first, then other args" > convention. I do not offhand know (and *MORE* *IMPORTANTLY*, I do > not want anybody to depend on) what the current command line parser > happens to do to > > git commit "*" -m "Test" > > If you meant to say that a pathspec with glob, always write it the > right way: > > git commit -m "Test" -- "*" > Ok, it makes sense, I will follow this format. > > About the windows question, I think I will see if there is any common > > ground I could find > > But until then I think prereq is a great option. > > The FUNNYNAMES prereq was invented to mark tests that rely on > filesystem being able to handle certain letters, so that may be a > good thing to use. Noted will add this too, I'm still finding all the possible files and how they could matter in this test. Once I do that and check if the CI works or not and if I cannot make it work with both platforms (Which I think most probably will happen) I will add the prereq FUNNYNAMES as intended. -Jayatheerth
